fix(license): switch to ISC

[zkat]

As part of the ongoing relicensing process, this changes
the license over to one more palatable to open source
consumers.

BREAKING CHANGE: license changed from CC0 to ISC.

NOTE

This requires consent from all contributors. If you're on the list below, please reply with "I agree" or a 👍 or something similar to let me know you're ok with your changes being included in this relicensing.

The reason this is happening is because it's pretty hard for some folks to use CC0 stuff, since it's not an OSI-approved license. ISC is the license used by the npm CLI, so I'm switching to it for convenience. We ran all this through our company lawyer before going about it, too, and it's part of a number of relicensing PRs that are happening to related projects I've worked on! Let me know if you have any questions!

• @lange
• @yyjdelete
• @cilice
• @tmyt
• @nlkluth
• @bitinn
• @SimenB
• @miiihi
• @colinrotherham

[yyjdelete]

👍

[nlkluth]

👍

[bitinn]

I need a bit of a primer on changing license on a forked project. It’s totally fine for node-fetch to keep MIT, and the forked project node-fetch-npm can use whatever it likes, true? Does MIT permit that? Does it require original license to be in place? Other than that I have no problem with this really. (From my phone)

…

On 15 Nov 2017, at 11:13, Nathan Kluth ***@***.***> wrote: 👍 — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[zkat]

@bitinn I can't change the license on node-fetch-npm, so that stays MIT. This applies solely to the m-f-h codebase, which doesn't share code with node-fetch. In order to change the license for node-fetch-npm, I would require permission from all contributors of that project. MIT is perfectly fine, though, and has basically the same benefits as ISC in this context, so I wouldn't even want to do that.

Since node-fetch is MIT, that also means it's not required for dependents to adopt that license.

[colinrotherham]

👍

[bitinn]

@zkat Thx, I was confused by the “ongoing relicense” part of the sentence. Your explanation clears it up. Thumbs up to this change. (From my phone)

…

On 15 Nov 2017, at 14:19, Kat Marchán ***@***.***> wrote: @bitinn I can't change the license on node-fetch-npm, so that stays MIT. This applies solely to the m-f-h codebase, which doesn't share code with node-fetch. In order to change the license for node-fetch-npm, I would require permission from all contributors of that project. MIT is perfectly fine, though, and has basically the same benefits as ISC in this context, so I wouldn't even want to do that. Since node-fetch is MIT, that also means it's not required for dependents to adopt that license. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[SimenB]

👍

[zkat]

@bitinn ahh, that was me referencing similar relicensing efforts for cacache, pacote, and the other npm5-related libraries, which I was defaulting to CC0 before realizing the issues that would cause in practice (I'd been using that license for years).

[miiihi]

👍

…

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Kat Marchán ***@***.***> wrote: @bitinn <https://github.com/bitinn> ahh, that was me referencing similar relicensing efforts for cacache, pacote, and the other npm5-related libraries, which I was defaulting to CC0 before realizing the issues that would cause in practice (I'd been using that license for years). — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAjzMIhhX-4Ydb7t_-G1bP8BCC7GjGGaks5s2ovcgaJpZM4QeTzV> .

[cilice]

👍

[tmyt]

👍